Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

As I went through this, my feeling that I don't like any of the easy paths for this offseason was reinforced. I don't see any top free agents that look like good targets, but the club needs at least one more good pitcher in the rotation and the bullpen, and they need a shortstop.

I don't know what the trade market will look like, or how other clubs will value their players or the Red Sox players, but I think Theo (or Ben) should be planning to work the phones like crazy and make a splash at the winter meetings.

The other thing I noticed is that the Sox have a bunch of competent and cheap young players under contract for bench and middle relief jobs. The money they save there could be very useful, if they find someone good to spend it on.

I think you bring back Scutaro because the alternatives are worse. No one from the group of Aviles, Lowrie or Iglesias should be a starting shortstop in the majors and I think the contracts for the free agents that would represent an improvement (Reyes and Rollins) are likely to be prohibitive.

I agree with you that the FA market is uninspiring. I think between Edwin Jackson and Mark Buehrle the Sox can get what they need (200 reliable if unspectacular innings) at a reasonable cost. I'd be fine with either guy.

Personally I want Papelbon back. The Sox can overpay for a closer and the fact is that whether you call him a "Closer" or just a "Reliever" Papelbon is one of the best in baseball at pitching in that role. Additionally, for a position notorious for inconsistency he is pretty consistent. It is hard to believe that the Sox can let Papelbon go and make the bullpen better. I'd like a run at Juan Cruz to partner with Bard then fill out the bullpen with returnees/kids (i.e. Doubront).

I think Bard as a starter is a disaster waiting to happen. I think because of how bad he was in the minors you run the risk of a complete breakdown of his mechanics that maybe can't be fixed this time.

Lastly, I would inform Lackey that the only thing he can count on is a paycheck as required by contract law. When he gets to Ft. Myers he is in a group with Doubront, Tazawa, Bedard(???) fighting for that last spot. EDIT: If you bring back Bedard he is the fifth starter until some body part falls off which probably puts him around Patriots Day.

Generally agree with your position players and I'm left with a pitching staff of;

They don't even have 5 starters including Lackey, because Dice-K isn't back till late in the season. It sure is easy to waste $148 million. Given they have Bard, I'd be in favor of Broxton. I'd also be in favor of going young in general (except bring Wake back -- they need him badly as a #6) and punting 2012 in the hope of getting draft picks that turn into something. Whatever they do, they shouldn't bring back Ortiz and Papelbon -- expensive and no good.

I'd be in favor of going for Pujols or Fielder if they can get them and going cheap everywhere else.

If they aren't going to spend on Wilson/CC then they might as well spend on Ortiz given a lack of good places to spend the cash. I'd rather do that then load up on depth that won't help in the playoffs. Yes, the team will need more depth than last year, but there's still room in the budget for that even with one big player.

Also, Darvish will probably be posted. I'd be curious to see how the Red Sox approach him. I wouldn't want to see the club write him off just because of Dice-K. Is Darvish less of a finesse/nibbler who relies on a better fastball and thus may translate better (I'm not 100%, but I believe so)? Does he have an unusual workout program, and if so how would the Sox react (I have no idea)? Maybe you end up at the same place, but I suspect/hope the fans are more jaded about imports than the FO.

The Cubs should be looking long-term, and I'd like to see the team go after Sean Marshall. He'd be a nice fit in either a setup role, or if they wanted to stretch him back out as a starter.

I don't see why Aceves can't be a long guy and moved into the rotation as need be.

Matsuzaka was not a finesse pitcher. He was a power/strikeout pitcher with fastball command much worse than projected.

The question with Darvish is whether his stuff and command match the numbers. With Dice-K, I still don't understand how a guy who couldn't spot his fastball in the zone could rattle off numbers like he did in NPB. (My pet theory is that, since he was the most popular athlete in the country, he got a seven-foot wide strike zone from NPB umps.)

I should have mentioned Darvish in the post. I really like that option, especially since some of the money he'd cost wouldn't count toward the luxury tax, and the Sox pay a lot of attention to their tax number. Of course, I like Darvish insofar as his numbers translate, and that is the open question with him.

B. Tell both Bard and Aceves to plan on starting in Spring Training, if one of them works out, great, if not, they can spend the last week or so getting ready for relief. Optimally Bard takes to the conversion and you keep Aceves as a swingman/longman/6th-7th guy again.

C. Sign Fielder or Pujols instead of committing too much money to an aging Ortiz. He's not going to sign for 2/25 after the year he just had. He's going to be looking for something like 3/45, and probably expect something like 3/40.

D. Closer: Re-sign Papelbon, or sign Bell or Madson. Whoever you can get out of that trio on the most reasonable deal for their expected value.

E. Going into spring training with an open rotation spot (with Bard/Aceves/a few reclamation types competing for the spot) can actually be a good thing, because it allows you to have a better selection among the reclamation type guys. This is why the Yankees were able to grab all of Colon, Garcia, and Millwood this spring. They didn't have 5 (or 6) starters set in stone, so these guys knew they had a shot at a job in the ML rotation. You're going to have to go cheap somewhere, and I think the back end of the rotation is the place. In the playoffs your back end of the rotation ends up being irrelevant anyway. Plus you've got Daisuke coming back in August or September as another back end option for the stretch run. I just don't see a good argument for dropping big money on Wilson or Jackson or Darvish when you already have a front three of Lester, Beckett, Buchholz.

I don't know what you mean by "creativity". Do you propose to creatively offer lowball contracts? How else does the money get saved?

I'm thinking more along the lines of structuring (for example) a deal for Papelbon where he's paid something like $11-15-15-15. You save a couple up front (not luxury tax but actual spending) and give it back on the back end. Or defer some money. I'm thinking of savings of spending rather than luxury tax though. Obviously creativity doesn't do it on luxury tax.

Jose - and I owe you an equivalent ($25) sponsorship for the collapse. I'll look at b-r this afternoon and get back to you.

I refuse to collect on that one. It's blood money.

Also, Darvish will probably be posted

I think there is a chance that Darvish winds up being a steal for someone. Just a hunch but Matsuzaka (and Igawa and even Irabu) probably have people wary of Japanese pitchers.

I like Madson a lot, and if he could be had for cheaper than Papelbon, I would be fine with that.

I know they have internal RF options, but I suspect we'll see them kick the tires on some RF trade options in the off-season.

A lot really depends on what they see as Youk's role in the next couple of years--if it's primarily as DH or 3B or a bit of both.

Also, I suspect the non-tender list will be influential on the off-season plan as well; I don't know of a good place to go with an overall assessment of who might wind up non-tendered, but we've had some success there in the past.

A lot really depends on what they see as Youk's role in the next couple of years--if it's primarily as DH or 3B or a bit of both.

Walt Davis said a couple of times last offseason that the Red Sox were taking a major risk signing a new 1B and sticking Youkilis at third for three seasons in his early 30s. I was skeptical at the time, but Walt looks to have been basically vindicated. It's possible Youkilis would have broken down equally quickly if he'd been playing 1B, and it's possible Youkilis could come back healthy and effective for two more seasons, but he's now a dilemma for the club.

My concern with Scutaro is defense. His TZ and ZR numbers are among the worst in the league, but his UZR and RZR were about average. If he was an averageish shortstop, his option is a good bet. If he was quite poor, it isn't.

I refuse to collect on that one. It's blood money.

The money goes to Sean and B-R. I'm paying whether you like it or not.

I think they pick up Scutaro's option quickly. He's a decent fallback option, and having him signed gives them leverage if they decide they do want to make a run at Rollins or Reyes (if the market for either of those two turns out to be thin).

The decision on Ortiz comes down I think to how many years he wants. If he'd go for Dale's 2/25 with a club option I do that in a heartbeat.

I'd also bring back Pap unless he's looking for 6/90 or something.

I would *not* make any move to make Bard a starter.

I really really like Aceves as a true long man/swingman, but I wouldn't blame them for giving him a shot at the rotation.

You're right, I wasn't clear on the roster/payroll thing. I'm going to fix the initial post.

Hmm, I figured the Ellsbury one would have been the "we shouldn't"

He's both. No way do the Rays give up a top prospect with three more minimum-salary seasons to go in exchange for a guy who will cost over $20M for two seasons and then head to free agency. And I don't want the Red Sox giving up a 5-win All-Star who should be locked in to a longterm deal in Boston. It's just a bad trade all around.

Separate from the likelihood of this specific deal, I would think Beckett would have more trade value right now than Cain, or am I crazy? I believe Cain only has 1 year left before free agency, at $15 million.

Dice-K averages 92 when healthy. I believe Darvish sits 92-93 and goes higher as needed, but that may be outdated. That doesn't sound like a bunch, but it is very significant if it's still accurate.

IIRC DiceK was said to sit at least 92-93 and then be able to dial it up for there prior to his coming to the US.

My pet theory is that, since he was the most popular athlete in the country, he got a seven-foot wide strike zone from NPB umps.

Sprowl (on SoSH) has a theory that the difference lies in the difference between baseballs used by MLB and NPB. MLB has slightly larger balls with slimmer seams and thus moves/ breaks less than its NPB counterpart. He also points out that DiceK has smaller fingers, so his ability to exert pressure and spin the ball is lessened. Compare that Pedro's long fingers, and it starts to make more sense.

If Darvish gets posted, I'd like to see the Sox in on him; the same things that made DiceK so appealing (limited leverage in negotiations, a large chunk of the expenditure not counting against the LT threshold, and a lack of other good options on the FA market) make Darvish worth the risk.

C. Sign Fielder or Pujols instead of committing too much money to an aging Ortiz. He's not going to sign for 2/25 after the year he just had. He's going to be looking for something like 3/45, and probably expect something like 3/40.

Ortiz will most likely be back. Like with Jeter last offseason, everyone knows he likely will be worth less than he will be paid, but the team still needs him, and there's nowhere else that's a great landing place for him.

The only hold-up would be if the team tried to lowball him. I see Ortiz as a guy with a lot of pride, and if he was insulted, he might sour on the team altogether, particularly coming off this difficult season.

Jacksone - obviously not, but if Ortiz's non-union mexican equivalent can give you 60% of his production at 20% of the cost, and you have a good plan for using that money elsewhere, you can improve the club's overall projection while downgrading at DH.

I really don't understand the thinking that good relievers can easily replicate their success in the starting rotation. Are there examples of this outside of CJ Wilson that I am not aware of?

Isn't the better question whether there's a risk involved? If a bullpen to starter conversion doesn't take, can the pitcher return to the pen with the original expected results. Because if there's no real downside to the plan, then it seems like a worthwhile attempt (and if C.J. Wilson gets a hefty deal this winter, not that hard to convince the bullpen arm of its merits).

This is why I don't like it for Bard, I think there is risk involved in his case. This isn't a guy who scuffled a bit as a starter, this is a guy who was a complete disaster as a starter. His walk rate was 21% and his K rate was 12.5%. I mean, yeah, this was his first year of pro ball and he's older and wiser now but man, I'd hate to see the Sox mess up a good thing. I just fear he'd lapse back to that mode and wouldn't break out of it.

Jacksone - obviously not, but if Ortiz's non-union mexican equivalent can give you 60% of his production at 20% of the cost, and you have a good plan for using that money elsewhere, you can improve the club's overall projection while downgrading at DH.

Well sure, I was just curious if people knew who those 60% players may be. Take a shot with Carlos Pena? You mentioned Kubel and Willingham, any others?

Joba Chamberlain hasn't really lived up to the expectations. I do think the injuries were caused by the usage.

Injury is a risk with every pitcher. I think the herky-jerky usage of Joba may have been an issue but he was a known injury risk coming out of school (why he dropped to the Yanks if I remember correctly). I have to think that given a full off-season to prepare getting ready to start has no more (or no less) injury risk than relieving.

If Francona was not the problem (and seemingly everyone agrees that he wasn't), then you have to change the clubhouse. Which means removing and adding enough players that the climate changes. Which probably means a fairly significant roster overhaul.

Who do we think are the biggest problems in the clubhouse? I'd go with Lackey (duh), but also, perhaps, Youkilis. Or Ortiz. Identify 'em and throw 'em out.

If Francona was not the problem (and seemingly everyone agrees that he wasn't), then you have to change the clubhouse.

Not necessarily. Most modern (hell, probably non-modern as well) managers, except maybe Cox and TLR, simply need to be replaced at a certain point. It's probably true that Tito wasn't the problem. At the same time, a simple change at the top, a new voice, can be enough to change how the clubhouse operates.

Of course it goes without saying that any plan that extricates Lackey from the roster is one worth pursuing.

If Francona was not the problem (and seemingly everyone agrees that he wasn't), then you have to change the clubhouse. Which means removing and adding enough players that the climate changes. Which probably means a fairly significant roster overhaul.

Who do we think are the biggest problems in the clubhouse? I'd go with Lackey (duh), but also, perhaps, Youkilis. Or Ortiz. Identify 'em and throw 'em out.

Just because Francona wasn't 'the problem' does not mean the removing and replacing him does not change the clubhouse. Francona and Red Sox ownership have both said that Francona's time was about done with the team - players were just a bit too comfy with him. So a new manager comes in and even though Lackey is still a mouth-breathing ogre, he at least slouches on the bench in the dugout and glowers at his teammates as opposed to sipping a frosty in the clubhouse.

Who do we think are the biggest problems in the clubhouse? I'd go with Lackey (duh), but also, perhaps, Youkilis. Or Ortiz. Identify 'em and throw 'em out.

Going another round with the Pitchers of Beer could be risky but they won't be easy to move given the salaries involved. I wonder if Scioscia still holds Lackey in sufficient regard to consider trading for him on relatively favorable terms.

Just because Francona wasn't 'the problem' does not mean the removing and replacing him does not change the clubhouse. Francona and Red Sox ownership have both said that Francona's time was about done with the team - players were just a bit too comfy with him. So a new manager comes in and even though Lackey is still a mouth-breathing ogre, he at least slouches on the bench in the dugout and glowers at his teammates as opposed to sipping a frosty in the clubhouse.

If the clubhouse is out of control, it's going to take a pretty strong or savvy hand to, well, take it in hand. Tito has always been a players' coach, never throwing his charges under the bus in the media, taking responsibility, etc. My guess is that this clubhouse needs more rehab than simply subtracting Tito will fix.

I have to believe that, if there was indeed drinking during the games, Tito tried to stop it and was rebuked.

I don't understand the "downside fear". Preparing in spring as a starter is going to make Bard forget how to pitch, and go back to his failed mechanics from his first year in the minors? That seems incredibly implausible. Obviously he might not succeed at starting, but he should be perfectly fine to go back to being the same relief pitcher he is now if the experiment is aborted. Bard has already stated in the past (I believe during an interview this season) that he would like to try starting. And he seems like he's a cerebral guy who would be well suited to starting rather than trying to be a short reliever with the requisite short memory.

I think people are really ignoring the downside risk in re-signing Ortiz. He's old, and even this year when he was "healthy" he missed a few weeks due to bursitis in his foot. And while he did hit lefties this season, the prior few seasons he was completely neutralized by even marginal lefties (a la Ryan Howard). And there really isn't much in the pipeline or on the roster to fill in with DH quality ABs if Ortiz is injured or collapses. Lavarnway might be, but he's probably going to be platooning at catcher already. So then you're either moving Youk to DH and getting Lowrie's or Aviles's bat into the lineup. None of those guys are bad against LHP, but they're pretty bad replacements for a real DH caliber bat against RHP.

I'd rather see the team write a big check for a guy with less downside and get younger. Plus Fielder or Pujols (especially Pujols) can give you some rest for Adrian Gonzalez, who was really badly beaten up down the stretch this year and could've used a few games at DH per month. But if you sign Ortiz, you can't really do that. You need to either rest Ortiz's bat or Gonzalez's bat if you want to get Gonzalez off the field. And Pujols can probably spell Youkilis at third base as well. That added flexibility has value.

And even if you're not convinced by any of that, the simple fact is that re-signing David Ortiz is extremely unlikely to replicate the production David Ortiz provided in 2011.

The downside of Ortiz is that he craters or misses significant time from injuries. All the dead money really hurt the Red Sox this season. Lackey, Daisuke, Cameron, Drew, and Crawford all drew big money while contributing basically nothing. I'd rather pay a guy $25M next year and have him disappoint and only be worth 15M (still being average to above average) than pay Ortiz $12-14M and have him provide $2M of value as barely above replacement level or barely playing. Having players who are good enough to be significant contributors even in down years is a really good thing, and I think with the money available the Sox should target such an individual.

Look, if Pujols is at all open to playing LF or 3B (in addition to DHing/spelling A-Gon at 1B), I go after him hard with buckets of cash and beg him to sign... But I just can't see him agreeing to such a thing. I mean, who knows--maybe he'd be up for the challenge, but I just can't see it being plausible.

So is the consensus we're OK with Theo walking? Because I'm way more torn about this than Francona leaving.

I'll miss Theo, and he's clearly a good GM, but I think a lot of what we think of as a GM's job is actually an organization's job, and I still have a lot of faith in the Red Sox organization. They're not perfect, but they've been run reasonably well for years now and their owner has a giant pit filled with money that he likes to spend on the team. I think the best bet by far is that that continues.

TE - I'm a weird set of emotions on Theo. I think Theo is an excellent GM but I also think this is the second time he's tried to leave, there is something unsettling about that.

Until I see how the Sox proceed here I'm withholding judgment. If they promote Cherington and get something helpful as compensation I'll feel good. If they go out and hire Jim Bowden and then throw a six year deal at CJ Wilson I'm going on a four state killing spree.

All indications/reports are that Cherington would get the nod. That makes me feel a bit better.

The compensation will be an interesting one...

Wild Fantasy:

Cubs get Theo

Cubs get Crawford

Red Sox get Soriano

I think I'd take that deal. There's no way his defense could get much worse at Fenway, he still has some RH pop, and you can bury the bad OBP down in the 6-9 slots. You then get out from under a bad deal 3 years early and maybe even get more production to boot.

I know I'm irrational but I hate Carl Crawford--or whatever alien has decided to take over his body while he's with the Red Sox.

You've obviously got a mix of hits and misses there, and you have former starters moved to relief and back to starting mixed in there as well, but there's evidence that a relief->start conversion can work depending on what you're working with. A few Yankee fans have wondered about David Robertson as a starter, which would be interesting considering he hasn't started a game since high school. I don't think Robertson is efficient enough with his command to work as a starter. No idea if that's an issue for Bard.

2. I think Ortiz is back also. Pujols is not coming to the Sox to DH or play CF or whatever. I think Ortiz will sign a reasonable 2-3 year deal.

3. The presumption is that they let Papelbon walk, and Bard steps in, scuffles at the end of this year notwithstanding. I can't see them trying Bard back as a starter after he was miserable as a starter in the minors and stellar as a reliever in the majors.

4. I agree they fill RF in house.

5. Which leaves the problem that we all recognize - starting pitching. By the math of the OP, it sounds like they only have about $7 mil to get that done. As has been mentioned all they need is innings eaters, but even one of those will cost more than $7 mil. They probably will bump payroll a bit though - isn't that what they usually do after disappointing years?

All this is predicated on my belief that the Sox as currently assembled are a great team, and if they replayed last year they would usually win 96+ games. Make changes where there's a good opportunity, not just to change things up. Actually, looking back at their position players, what's not to like? They're various combinations of good, young, and cheap (with the exception of Crawford, and I'm optimistic on him for next year).

Scutaro is coming back.
Would love Pujols, if he can cover 3rd. No way he signs anywhere he isn't playing on the field full time.(Damn, should've listened to Phil Coorey when he said to sign Beltre and trade Youks)
Surely...SURELY Crawford isn't this bad..Surely he can OPS 750..Surely!
Ortiz is coming back on 2/28 type of thing, 2nd year will be brutal.
SP is a major issue. I have no faith in Lackey or Dice K being effective...ever. Which leaves 4/5 spots to fill and needing #6 guy to fill inevitable missed starts due to injuries.

If there's a good chance the Red Sox have 35m invested in a couple of wins (Crawford and Lackey) isn't Darvish the kind of risk they can't afford to take? Every ballplayer's a risk, of course, but how Darvish takes to the majors is probably a bigger risk than, say, signing Sabathia for six or seven years. Even though the posting fee doesn't count against the luxury task, I assume it still counts towards the Red Sox payroll figure. With two, big, very uncertain contracts on the boos, risking a third seems awfully, awfully dicey.

If there's a good chance the Red Sox have 35m invested in a couple of wins (Crawford and Lackey) isn't Darvish the kind of risk they can't afford to take? Every ballplayer's a risk, of course, but how Darvish takes to the majors is probably a bigger risk than, say, signing Sabathia for six or seven years. Even though the posting fee doesn't count against the luxury task, I assume it still counts towards the Red Sox payroll figure. With two, big, very uncertain contracts on the boos, risking a third seems awfully, awfully dicey.

If Francona was not the problem (and seemingly everyone agrees that he wasn't), then you have to change the clubhouse. Which means removing and adding enough players that the climate changes. Which probably means a fairly significant roster overhaul.

Who do we think are the biggest problems in the clubhouse? I'd go with Lackey (duh), but also, perhaps, Youkilis. Or Ortiz. Identify 'em and throw 'em out.

The major substantive allegation in today's Hohler piece is that Lackey, Lester, and Beckett not only goofed off in the clubhouse during the games, but also refused to keep up their conditioning, against the recommendations of the team's coaches. Hohler also reports unidentified others joined the big three in letting their conditioning slip. That, to me, is the sort of offense that justifies dumping someone off the team. How do you trust a player to play up to his projection the next year when you aren't confident that he'll put in the work that the projection systems assume he will? And if those pitchers were helping to convince other guys to slack off from their work, that's a poisonous influence.

(The only players Hohler exempts from criticism for their work ethic are Pedroia, Ellsbury, Aceves, and Papelbon. The first two would be anyone's first guess, Aceves makes sense in retrospect, and Papelbon is an interesting one - he may be more likely to return if he was one of the good guys. I think that the fact that Carl Crawford has yet to appear in a single one of these collapse pieces suggests strongly he was working hard, too.)

Theo said at the big post-collapse press conference that the front office would be keeping much closer tabs on offseason conditioning, and I assume everyone will be paying close attention to conditioning in-season. One hopes that the combination of the shame of the collapse, the shame of this reporting, and the improved front office oversight will drive the players to take better care of themselves. I don't think the club needs to fire everyone who was part of the problem. But I think it would be better to move at least one or two of the problem players, and it would be a big risk to bring back all of Beckett, Lester, and Lackey. Given baseball realities, I'm betting Lackey is gone for pennies on the dollar.

If there's a good chance the Red Sox have 35m invested in a couple of wins (Crawford and Lackey) isn't Darvish the kind of risk they can't afford to take?

How much larger is the risk, though? Carl Crawford and John Lackey were star major league players who collapsed utterly. The guy who most resembles Lackey and Crawford on the market this year is probably CJ Wilson - a very good but probably not elite talent who will be expecting big money, and given the state of the pitching market looks likely to get it. Jose Reyes comes with huge downside risk.

And we don't know how expensive Darvish will be. I think that we can easily peg the highest possible contract for Darvish at Dice-K level (6/100 including posting fee). He's probably going to come a good deal cheaper than Wilson. Is that "savings" worth the risk? I simply don't know - evaluating Darvish is very much a job for the Red Sox scouts.

The superstars, Sabathia and Pujols and Fielder, come with a different sort of risk. To get them, you have to commit very big money to contracts for guys who will be in their late 30s. If they already have bad contracts to work through from 2015-2018, do they want to add more possible dead weight to that future team?

I continue to not really like any of the simple paths through the offseason. I'd like to see some moves and some trades.

The only players Hohler exempts from criticism for their work ethic are Pedroia, Ellsbury, Aceves, and Papelbon. The first two would be anyone's first guess, Aceves makes sense in retrospect, and Papelbon is an interesting one - he may be more likely to return if he was one of the good guys. I think that the fact that Carl Crawford has yet to appear in a single one of these collapse pieces suggests strongly he was working hard, too

Aceves was getting some bad press early in the season as I recall for not listening to the coaching staff (see the "balk game" against Minnesota).

Look, I'm not saying this stuff isn't a significant problem but there is a lot of after the fact reporting here that strikes me as piling on. Adrian Gonzalez for example seems to have gone from "steady influence" to "vanilla personality". Did he change or did the results change? I know what I think but I can't disagree with those who view it differently.

Look, I'm not saying this stuff isn't a significant problem but there is a lot of after the fact reporting here that strikes me as piling on.

What I'm trying to do - over in the "rumor-mongering" thread, is to collect all the data and sift through for what's piling on or after-the-fact spin and what's real. I totally agree that the Hohler piece has a bunch of filler and a bunch of crap in it. He's got absolutely nothing on Gonzalez, Wakefield, Youkilis, and Varitek, but they each get a paragraph or two of blather.

But I think that the allegations against Beckett, Lester, and Lackey are specific and if true, damning. They have now been repeated in multiple locations, and they are corroborated by front office claims that conditioning was a problem and commitment was a problem. Now we have some names to match with the general claims from the early interviews. Obviously if my conclusions are wrong and the reporters are piling on to a minor problem, then no one should worry much about the big three. I think it's more likely that not that those three guys were a real problem in the clubhouse and their poor work ethic actively contributed to Sox losses, and in that case at least one of them should be gone. (And given baseball realities, it won't be Lester and it probably will be Lackey.)

But I think that the allegations against Beckett, Lester, and Lackey are specific and if true, damning. They have now been repeated in multiple locations, and they are corroborated by front office claims that conditioning was a problem and commitment was a problem. Now we have some names to match with the general claims from the early interviews.

Agreed, but that really feels like the only thing of substance to Hohler's piece (the Francona hatchet job notwithstanding). That aspect of this definitely has a ring of truth to it.

Yup. Most of what we get is going to be filler and bullshit. That's just the nature of sports reporting in contemporary America. I think it's possible to dig through the bullshit and find some real history, if we can collect enough of the reporting and read it critically.

Can we get a Theo appreciation thread? I assume it's coming, but even with the Crawford and Lackey signings among other issues, I'm gonna miss the hell out of the guy. I assume Cherington is cut from the same cloth, but still.

The superstars, Sabathia and Pujols and Fielder, come with a different sort of risk. To get them, you have to commit very big money to contracts for guys who will be in their late 30s. If they already have bad contracts to work through from 2015-2018, do they want to add more possible dead weight to that future team?

The only guys the Sox have signed past 2014 are AGon (2018) and Crawford (2017). I certainly think it's a bit premature to call Adrian's deal an albatross. Sure, he may suck by then, but Crawford might also rebound. I think the bigger question is whether they have room to make those types deals in the short term. And FWIW on the conditioning aspect, all I've ever hear about Crawford is that he is an incredibly hard worker, and that if anything, he cares too much.

Getting back to things that matter, like baseball, I'm just trying to see how much WAR the Red Sox need to get from unsigned players to field a 95 win team next year.

Catcher: Saltalarnaway should give about the same 3 WAR that we got this year at catcher.

First base: We got 6.5 from AG, -.5 elsewhere, seems like 5.5 should be reasonable to expect.

Second base: 8 from Pedroia this year, somewhere around 6 would be my guess for next year.

Third Base: All in Red Sox got 4.7 from 3b this year, which seems like a reasonable approximation of what they'll get next year, so call it 5 since this is dirty.

SS: TBD. Red Sox got 3 WAR out of Scutaro, Lowrie combo this year. I can't expect much more than that next year, but I also can't expect much less.

LF: Got 0 out of Crawford last year, what is reasonable to expect this year? I'm going to say 3 is reasonable doing a quick and dirty Marcel. That's a huge upgrade there, FWIW, and why I'm reasonably optimistic about next year.

CF: Well this hast o come down. 9 WAR from Ellsbury last year, what is reasonable, 6? I'll say 6.

RF: TBD. Only .7 wins out of RF last season. A full season of Josh Reddick would probably be around 3 wins.

DH: Ortiz was 4.3, we won't get that next year, even from him. Let's just slot in 2 wins here as a guess.

I'm at, I think, losing 1 WAR all in all. We talked about this during the year, but as great as the top 5 players were, the corner outfielders were so bad that the Red Sox really weren't playing that far above expectations in terms of production from hitters. Getting 35-40 WAR from the lineup next year is what I would expect, almost regardless of what they do at SS and DH because I think they'll at least get league average, and not replacement level.

You have to think they'll get more out of the back end of the rotation next year (pending whatever moves they make). the Buchholz/Dice/Lackey/Wake/Miller fiasco is going to be hard to top. Even with some regression from Beckett factored in, I don't see how they don't pick some wins up there...

Those WAR numbers look really generous to me - 2 WAR is average, and you have every position but DH at 3 WAR or higher.

But, if we're working from the player level, the Red Sox second-order winning percentage (based on player-level performance) projected them to 99 wins. They can drop quite a few wins from the lineup and still be pretty close to 95 wins, especially when you consider the under-performance of the rotation.

I think there's a good chance we'll have a real spring training competition next year for right field. I have trouble believing they'd move Reddick to commit to Kalish, and Kalish doesn't have much trade value so he won't be going anywhere. That'd be really fun.

(Apparently I should be whining and outraged, though. That's what us Sox fans really like. Not, you know, the game of baseball and feeling of joy when your team wins. We're a people apart.)

I think I'd take that deal. There's no way his defense could get much worse at Fenway, he still has some RH pop, and you can bury the bad OBP down in the 6-9 slots. You then get out from under a bad deal 3 years early and maybe even get more production to boot.

I know I'm irrational but I hate Carl Crawford--or whatever alien has decided to take over his body while he's with the Red Sox.

Yeah, that sounds wild, but if Theo signed Crawford (who Henry doesn't like) and would love to ditch Soriano, it isn't beyond all reason.

I have trouble believing they'd move Reddick to commit to Kalish, and Kalish doesn't have much trade value so he won't be going anywhere. That'd be really fun.

I have trouble believing that too, but it'll be interesting to see how Cherington & Co. approach this. I can't see Epstein rolling the dice on Reddick as the starting RF - I think he'd at least bring in some semi-toasty veteran presence for a job share that probably wouldn't work out very well. I don't think Reddick is likely to be a star, but he's basically David Murphy, and you can build a championship team with that. Texas seems to be doing pretty well.

I think there's a good chance we'll have a real spring training competition next year for right field. I have trouble believing they'd move Reddick to commit to Kalish, and Kalish doesn't have much trade value so he won't be going anywhere. That'd be really fun.

They could use some right-handed hitting outfielders to platoon with the corner guys.

Crawford felt soreness when he started his offseason hitting workouts around Jan. 1. He had an MRI that showed cartilage damage, and arthroscopic surgery was recommended. Crawford has had wrist issues in the past, but the discomfort had always passed. Having such pain at this time of the year was a red flag.

Apparently the Sox medical staff is a cartoon version of the trainer for a Texas high school football team. How he got a job at MGH, no one will ever know.

This is also pretty big roster problem. The Sox have only three outfielders - Ellsbury, Crawford, and a platoon with Sweeney on the strong side. They need another one if there's any risk that Crawford misses significant time. I guess the problem is also an opportunity - anybody got a Ken Phelps all-star to play left field in Fenway?

I don't think that's a quite accurate summation of things snapper. The way I read the article Crawford first brought the win to the attention of the Sox shortly after January 1 and they delay with it pretty quickly.

The medical staff really doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt but based on the piece in Extra Bases I'm inclined to give it to them.

This is also pretty big roster problem. The Sox have only three outfielders - Ellsbury, Crawford, and a platoon with Sweeney on the strong side. They need another one if there's any risk that Crawford misses significant time.

I don't think that's a quite accurate summation of things snapper. The way I read the article Crawford first brought the win to the attention of the Sox shortly after January 1 and they delay with it pretty quickly.

That's not how I read this.

Crawford has had wrist issues in the past, but the discomfort had always passed. Having such pain at this time of the year was a red flag.

The way I read the article Crawford first brought the win to the attention of the Sox shortly after January 1 and they delay with it pretty quickly.

That's the thing with the Red Sox medical staff. They may not come up with a good program for treating an injury, they may instead ignore the baseball calendar and delay needed treatment for months, but they delay right away. When they delay, there's no delay on their delaying.